coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1965 and 1936 respectively and live in Hatay.
5.  On various dates, the applicants bought plots of land (nos. 1879 and 1878 respectively) near the coast in Hatay. The first applicant opened a wedding hall on the premises. The second applicant ran a cafeteria and a boarding house.
6.  In 1995 the Samandağ Municipality, acting on behalf of the Treasury, requested the Samandağ Court of First Instance to determine whether the applicants’ plots of land were located within the coastline. A group of experts, composed of a geomorphologist, a cartography engineer and an agricultural engineer, appointed by the court, inspected the applicants’ land and concluded that they were located within the coastline.
7.  Following the conclusions of the experts’ report, the Treasury filed two separate actions before the Samandağ Court of First Instance, requesting the annulment of the applicants’ title deeds to the lands on the ground that they were located within the coastline.
8.  On 30 December 1999 and 24 December 1999 respectively, the Samandağ Court of First Instance, after having obtained additional experts’ reports, upheld the request of the Treasury and decided to annul the title deeds of the applicants to the plots of land. In its decisions, the court held that, pursuant to domestic law, coasts could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides and on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the site. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeals on 10 July 2001 and 3 October 2000 respectively.
9.  On various dates the applicants requested the Court of Cassation to rectify its decision submitting, inter alia, that the right to property was protected under international conventions, the constitution and the domestic law, and that the domestic courts had deprived them of their property rights without proper examination. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ requests on 17 January 2002 and 19 April 2001 respectively. These decisions were served on the applicants on 18 February 2002 and 24 May 2001 respectively.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.
6.  On 25 August 2000 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of roubles 4,287.36 (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 4 September 2000.
7.  On 28 November 2000 a writ of execution was issued.
8.  As the judgment remained unexecuted, on an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the writ to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.
9.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 25 August 2000.
10.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 25 August 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.
11.  On 30 December 2004 the applicant received RUR 1,402.56 in execution of the judgment of the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh of 25 August 2000.
12.  On 26 January 2005 the applicant received RUR 818,16, and on 14 December 2005 the outstanding balance of RUR 2,066.64 thus completing full execution of the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in the village of Troitskoe in the Ulyanovsk Region.
5.  On 23 March 2001 the Chernovskiy District Court of Chita partly allowed the applicant's claim against the State enterprise “Stroitelniy Kompleks” (государственное предприятие “Строительный Комплекс”) for recovery of the unpaid amount of compensation for a work-related injury. The court awarded him 7,500 roubles (“RUR”) in respect of the period from 1996 to 1999. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 3 April 2001.
6.  As the applicant had not been able to attend the hearing, on 6 April 2001 the District Court sent a writ of execution to the Chita bailiffs for enforcement. It appears that some time in May 2002 the applicant was informed for the first time that the judgment had been adopted and that the writ had been sent to the bailiffs.
7.  In the meantime, on 21 June 2001 the Commercial Court of the Chita Region ordered liquidation of the State enterprise “Stroitelniy Kompleks” because it had gone bankrupt.
8.  On 31 May 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which forwarded it to the Chita local authorities.
9.  Having examined the issue, in July 2002 the local authorities discovered that in 2001 the writ of execution had been lost and had never reached the Chita bailiffs' service.
10.  On 23 July 2002 the District Court sent a duplicate writ of execution to the bailiffs.
11.  On 9 September 2002 the bailiffs commenced the enforcement proceedings.
12.  On 20 May 2003 the Chernovskiy District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings as the debtor company had ceased to exist. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment.
13.  It appears that the judgment of 23 March 2001 remains unenforced to date.
14.  In the meantime, on 30 September 2002 the Inzenskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region awarded the applicant the unpaid amounts of compensation for the period from 2000 to 2002, payable by the local social insurance foundation. It appears that this judgment was duly enforced by the national authorities.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.
6.  On 15 March 2001 the Central District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 6,945.10 roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 26 March 2001.
7.  On 23 May 2001 a writ of execution was issued.
8.  On 20 December 2001 the writ was returned to the applicant by the bailiff's service on account of the lack of funds in the debtor's account.
9.  The applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.
10.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 15 March 2001.
11.  On 10 November 2003 the Central District Court of Voronezh dismissed by a final judgment the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 15 March 2001.
12.  On 13 December 2005 the judgment of the Central District Court of Voronezh was fully executed.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.
6.  On 15 December 2000 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 8,637.22 roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 26 December 2000.
7.  On an unspecified date a writ of execution was issued.
8.  As the judgment remained unexecuted, on an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the writ to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.
9.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 15 December 2000.
10.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 15 December 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.
11.  In February 2004 the applicant received RUR 993.48 in execution of the judgment of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh of 15 December 2000.
12.  On 13 December 2005 she received the outstanding balance of RUR 7,643.74, thus completing full execution of the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefit due to her.
6.  On 9 June 2000 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 2,040.02 roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 20 June 2000.
7.  On an unspecified date a writ of execution was issued.
8.  On 26 July 2001 the writ was returned to the applicant by the bailiff's service owing to a lack of funds in the debtor's account.
9.  The applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.
10.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 9 June 2000.
11.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 9 June 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.
12.  In February 2004 the applicant received RUR 1,110.36 in execution of the judgment of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh of 9 June 2000.
13.  On 13 December 2005 she received the outstanding balance of RUR 929,66, thus completing full execution of the judgment.
4.  The applicants were born in 1959 and 1952 respectively and live in the village of Vengerovo in the Novosibirsk region of Russia.
5.  In late 2000 the applicants brought a civil action against the Russian Government and the Savings Bank seeking to enforce State-issued promissory notes for the purchase of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof. Upon the judge's request the applicants submitted the original promissory notes to the court.
6.  On 15 January 2001 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation acting through the Savings Bank to ensure redemption of the applicants' bonds from the funds of the federal budget for 12,800 Russian roubles (RUR) payable to the first applicant and RUR 18,000 to the second applicant. The judgment stated that following its execution the promissory notes should be handed over to the Federal Government. Apparently, no appeal was lodged against this judgment and it became final and enforceable.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicants submitted their writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.
8.  On 21 May 2003 the Ministry of Finance sent a letter to the applicants stating that the judgment of 15 January 2001 did not comply with the requirements of the legislation. The applicants were also informed that the Ministry of Finance would lodge a request for supervisory review of this judgment and seek suspension of the enforcement proceedings.
9.  It appears, however, that no supervisory review has taken place and the judgment remained final and binding.
10.  The applicants brought civil proceedings claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages due to the continued non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 January 2001. On 8 October 2003 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow rejected their claims.
11.  The Ministry of Finance wrote on 5 June 2006 to the applicants informing them that the judgment of 15 January 2001 would be enforced only after presentation of the original promissory notes, as required by Articles 816-817 of the Russian Civil Code. It appears that these promissory notes remain in the case file kept by the registry of the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow. The judgment of 15 January 2001 remains without enforcement.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.
6.  On 15 December 2000 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 9,176.23 roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 26 December 2000.
7.  On an unspecified date a writ of execution was issued.
8.  As the judgment remained unexecuted, on an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the writ to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.
9.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 15 December 2000.
10.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 15 December 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.
11.  In May 2003 the applicant received RUR 1,168.80 in execution of the judgment of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh of 15 December 2000.
12.  In December 2003 she received RUR 818.16 and on 15 December 2005 the outstanding balance of RUR 7,189.27, thus completing full execution of the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.
6.  On 29 September 2000 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 2,218.76 roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 3 October 2000.
7.  On 19 December 2002 a writ of execution was issued.
8.  As the judgment remained unexecuted, on an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the writ to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.
9.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 29 September 2000.
10.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 29 September 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.
11.  On 30 December 2004 the applicant received RUR 701.28 in execution of the judgment of the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh of 29 September 2000.
12.  On 26 January 2005 she received RUR 409.8, and on 14 December 2005 the outstanding balance of RUR 1,108.40 thus completing full execution of the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.
6.  On 17 March 2000 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 4,117.63 roubles (RUR ). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 27 March 2000.
7.  On 18 April 2000 a writ of execution was issued.
8.  On an unspecified date the writ was returned to the applicant by the bailiff's service owing to the lack of funds in the debtor's account.
9.  The applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.
10.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 17 March 2000.
11.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claim on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 17 March 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.
12.  On 30 December 2004 the applicant received RUR 2,103.84 in execution of the judgment of the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh of 17 March 2000.
13.  On 14 December 2005 she received the outstanding balance of RUR 2,103.89, thus completing full execution of the judgment.
6.  Mr Corcoran was born in 1966 and lives in Merseyside.
7.  His wife died on 23 August 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was made in October and November 1999 and was rejected on 10 November 1999 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. He appealed against this decision and the appeal tribunal dismissed his appeal on 17 January 2000 giving reasons in a letter of 19 January 2000. The applicant did not appeal again as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
8.  Mr Baker was born in 1959 and lives in Oldham.
9.  His wife died on 8 July 2000. The applicant made enquiries to the Benefits Agency in or around July/August 2000 and he was told he was not entitled to such benefits. His claim for widows’ benefits was then made on 1 September 2000 and was rejected on 8 September 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
10.  Mr Graham was born in 1956 and lives in Lancs.
11.  His wife died on 6 July 2000. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 14 August 2000 and was rejected on 21 August 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
5.  Mr Davis was born in 1953 and lives in North Somerset.
6.  His wife died on 18 September 1998. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 16 May 2000 and was rejected on 19 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. A formal decision was made by the Benefits Agency on 7 August 2000. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
7.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Berkshire.
8.  His wife died on 7 July 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 12 January 2000 and was rejected later in January 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
9.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Somerset.
10.  His wife died on 14 January 1991. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 12 May 2000 and was rejected on 13 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
11.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Herefordshire.
12.  His wife died on 4 August 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was made in mid-April 2000 and was rejected on 1 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
6.  His wife died on 10 May 1994. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on October 1997 and again in February 2000 and was rejected on 29 February 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
7.  Mr Clancy was born in 1950 and lives in Cornwall.
8.  His wife died on 17 November 1997. He tried to claim for benefits in late November 1997 but was told he was not entitled. His actual claim for widows’ benefits was then made on 26 May 2000 and was rejected on 2 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
9.  Mr Burt was born in 1950 and lives in Edinburgh.
10.  His wife died on 17 February 1997. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 23 May 2000 and was rejected on 30 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
11.  Mr Hill was born in 1939 and lives in Carmathenshire.
12.  His wife died on 28 March 1993. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 28 May 1993 but the Benefits Agency did not accept to process his claim. He wrote to the Benefits Agency again on 8 May 2000 and was rejected on 15 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
13.  Mr Lewis was born in 1944 and lives in Newport.
14.  His wife died on 11 July 1995. His claim for widows’ benefits was made in April 1999 and was rejected on 17 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.
5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the Orenburg Region.
6.  In April 2003 the applicant, a retired military officer, sued the Military Department of the Orenburg Region for an increase of his pension and compensation for pecuniary damage.
7.  On 16 April 2003 the Totskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region allowed the applicant's action and awarded him 20,989.90 Russian roubles (RUR).
8.  On 11 June 2003 the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 12 August 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds. It advised the applicant to apply to the Orenburg regional department of the Ministry of Finance.
10.  By letter of 10 October 2003, the Orenburg regional department advised the applicant to apply to head office of the Ministry of Finance.
11.  On 25 December 2003 the Ministry of Finance refused to pay the award and referred the applicant back to the bailiffs.
12.  On 9 January 2004 the applicant resubmitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. On 15 March 2004 the bailiffs again discontinued enforcement because the debtor had no available funds.
13.  On 10 March 2005 the Military Department transferred the amount due into the applicant's bank account.
14.  On 16 May 2005 a prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the head of the Military Department for his failure to enforce the judgment, finding that he had not acted with intent.